See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4733661
Does It Pay to Shock? Reactions to Shocking and Nonshocking Advertising
Content among University Students
Article in Journal of Advertising Research · September 2003
DOI: 10.1017/S0021849903030332 · Source: RePEc
CITATIONS
READS
336
33,880
3 authors, including:
Darren Dahl
Rajesh Manchanda
University of British Columbia
University of Manitoba
120 PUBLICATIONS 12,709 CITATIONS
20 PUBLICATIONS 2,269 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Darren Dahl on 10 December 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
Does It Pay to Shock? Reactions to
Shocking and Nonshocking Advertising
Content among University Students
DARREN W. DAHL
University of British
Columbia
darren.dahl@sauder.
Although the use of shocking content in advertising appeals has been widely adopted,
the effectiveness of such communication strategies has not been empirically
investigated. In two laboratory studies, conducted in the context of HIV/AIDS
ubc.ca
prevention, we examine the effectiveness of shock advertising in comparison to the
KRISTINA D.
commonly used appeals of fear and information. Our findings suggest that shocking
FRANKENBERGER
Western Oregon
University
content in an advertisement significantly increases attention, benefits memory, and
positively influences behavior among a group of university students.
frankek@wou.edu.
RAJESH V. MANCHANDA
IN AN AGE when consumers are exposed to an
and driving, condom usage. Whether shock ap-
University of Manitoba
estimated 3,000 advertisements per day (Lasn,
peals actually produce these effects, and produce
raj_manchanda
1999), what does it take to get an advertisement
them better than other appeals, is the main re-
noticed? For many advertisers, the answer is shock.
search question addressed in this article.
@umanitoba.ca.
Although opinions vary on whether shock is a
legitimate creative technique (Shannon, 1995; Van
DEFINING SHOCK ADVERTISING
Munching, 1998) or a gratuitous attention-grabbing
A shock advertising appeal is generally regarded
gimmick (Horovitz, 1992; Van Munching, 1998),
as one that deliberately, rather than inadvertently,
press accounts make it clear that shock is a widely
startles and offends its audience (Gustafson and
used advertising appeal (Cosper, 1997; Schloss-
Yssel, 1994; Venkat and Abi-Hanna, 1995). Offense
berg, 1991; Shannon, 1995; Vagnoni, 1999; Van
is elicited through the process of norm violation,
Munching, 1998; Wald, 1999). The trend is so
encompassing transgressions of law or custom
prolific in the United Kingdom that it even has its
(e.g., indecent sexual references, obscenity), breaches
own name, yobbo advertising, which is “roughly
of a moral or social code (e.g., profanity, vulgar-
translated as the desire to shock the audience
ity), or things that outrage the moral or physical
into taking notice by whatever means possible”
senses (e.g., gratuitous violence, disgusting images).
(Cooper, 1996).
There is little doubt that some advertising pur-
The purpose of this article is to investigate the
posely breaches social norms with the intent to
effectiveness of shocking advertisement content in
shock. Probably the most widely publicized cases
the context of a public service message. Presum-
include the advertising campaigns produced by
The authors would like to thank
ably, shocking messages are used in a bid to draw
clothing makers Benetton and Calvin Klein. Over
Jennifer Argo for her assistance
attention to an advertisement with the expecta-
the years Benetton’s advertisements have featured
in running the studies and
tion that further processing will take place if the
photographs of a slain soldier’s bloodied uni-
McKim Communications for
advertisement is noticed. Further, companies and
form, a dying AIDS patient, and a white infant
their assistance in creating the
organizations employing these techniques often
nursing at a black woman’s breast. The advertise-
advertising stimuli. The financial
do so thinking that a shock appeal will influence
ments have won awards for heightening public
support from the Social Sciences
behavior. Particularly in public service announce-
awareness of social issues but have also provoked
and Humanities Research Coun-
ments, it is hoped that shock appeals will gain
public outrage and consumer complaints (Graham,
cil of Canada is gratefully
attention, encourage cognitive processing, and have
1989; Kalish, 1990; Tinic, 1997). Calvin Klein’s
acknowledged.
an immediate impact on behavior, e.g., drinking
advertisements, whose “deliberately shocking
268 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH September 2003
DOI: 10.1017/S0021849903030332
SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS
graphics” (Goodrum and Dalrymple, 1990)
groups, they come to learn the rules that
tising messages (e.g., Waller, 1999). Fur-
are typically of a sexual nature, were tar-
those groups define for acceptable, and
thermore, because much of this research
geted by government and political groups
unacceptable, behavior (Baron and Byrne,
is descriptive rather than causal, we know
for their use of “pornographic” images
1977). The range of acceptable behaviors
only that individuals consider broad types
(Sloan and DeCoursey, 1995).
defined by norms is then used to evaluate
of content offensive (e.g., racist, sexist,
objects, persons, actions, and ideas (Sherif
indecent language; Waller, 1999) but not
and Sherif, 1969).
how they respond to a given advertise-
Public health campaigns have also been
the object of public scrutiny (Eisner, 2001).
An organization called The Breast Cancer
Advertising, as a social object, is eval-
ment. Similarly, conclusions from re-
Fund recently employed a poster cam-
uated by norms and is considered offen-
search on irritating advertising indicate
paign that mimics sexy lingerie advertise-
sive when its content breaches norms for
that some product categories (e.g., hem-
ments, featuring attractive models in bras
decency, good taste, aesthetic propriety,
orrhoid preparations) are intrinsically
and panties, but with one difference—
and/or personal moral standards (Day,
irritating and that some advertising execu-
these women reveal mastectomy scars in-
1991). Sony Entertainment violated norms
tion characteristics (e.g., contrived situa-
stead of breasts (Associated Press, 2000).
for decency and good taste by using dis-
tions and personal put-downs) increase
The advertisements were criticized by the
gusting and violent images in a poster
irritation (Aaker, 1985), but there is
media for their shocking nature, to the
depicting a dismembered body on a mor-
nothing that suggests whether irritating
extent that one media company refused
tuary slab (Marketing Week, 1999). Sexual
advertising is offensive or what kind
to place them. The Fund’s founder, how-
references that violate norms of morality
of impact it might have on consumer
ever, defended the advertisements, argu-
are consistently used by the clothing com-
behavior.
ing that without the shock element, people
pany F.C.U.K. in billboard advertisements
would “lapse into acceptance” of breast
that have urged consumers to F.C.U.K.
Shocking advertising content and
cancer. In a public health context, shock
“all night all long” and F.C.U.K. “think
cognitive processing
appeals have also been used to discour-
my clothes off” (Lippert, 1999). Similarly,
Advertisers typically justify shock ap-
age alcohol abuse, encourage seat belt
Bad Frog Brewery breached norms by
peals in advertising for their ability to
safety, and promote AIDS awareness, do-
using profanity in an advertisement that
“[break] through the clutter,” “get no-
mestic violence awareness, colorectal
featured an obscene gesture made by a
ticed,” and “get people’s attention” (Vagno-
cancer screening, and STD prevention
frog that has its middle finger extended
ni, 1999). Although there is no academic
(Bainbridge, 1996; Campaign, 1995; Mar-
(Advertising Age, 1996). Other examples of
literature that covers responses to shock-
keting Week, 1995; Schlossberg, 1991; Tylee,
shocking advertisements that have been
ing advertising per se, the notion that
1998).
criticized for breaking societal norms are
shocking stimuli attract attention and fa-
provided in Table 1.
cilitate other elements of cognition is out-
We note that previous research has iden-
lined by models of advertising information
tified the usage of sexual, irritating, and
processing (e.g., McGuire, 1978). Indeed,
The role of norms
offensive advertising content but has not
after attention, according to information-
Shocking advertising content is that which
fully investigated the role of inherent norm
processing models, shocking stimuli should
attempts to surprise an audience by delib-
violation in these approaches on con-
facilitate message comprehension and elab-
erately violating norms for societal values
sumer response. Research on sex in ad-
oration, enhance message retention, and
and personal ideals. It is the norm viola-
vertising, for example, often only assumes
influence behavior. Figure 1 illustrates this
tion aspect of the shock appeal that is
that the content is offensive or obscene; it
process. In the figure, exposure to the
assumed to underlie its ability to break
rarely tests the full implications of how a
advertisement serves as the starting point.
through advertising clutter and capture
“sexy” advertisement impacts the con-
Initial processing of advertising informa-
the attention of a target audience who
sumer (cf. Belch, Belch, and Villarreal, 1987;
tion involves a cognitive appraisal that
then listens and acts on the related mes-
Courtney and Whipple, 1983). Research
determines whether the advertisement vi-
sage. Norm violation derives from the
on offensive advertising more often fo-
olates a social and/or personal norm. Any
violation of shared expectations that peo-
cuses on potentially offensive products (e.g.,
object or event (such as an advertisement)
ple develop through the process of social
advertising for feminine hygiene, alcohol,
that contradicts an established expecta-
learning. As people interact with social
and underwear) than on offensive adver-
tion or schema (such as a social or per-
LITERATURE REVIEW
September 2003 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 269
SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS
TABLE 1
Types of Shock Appeals
Offense
Elicitor
Description
Advertising Exemplars
Published Reactions
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Disgusting images
References to blood, body parts
or secretions, orifices, especially
urinary/fecal, gases, odors,
Playstation, United States, 2000
Television commercial wherein chef
wipes steak around toilet bowl rim
Bob Garfield, Advertising Age advertising critic, coins new term for such
advertising: “advertrocities”
disease, parasites, bodily harm
(e.g., dismemberment), death
and adds rolled up nose pickings as
garnish in preparation for serving.
(Garfield, 2000)
and decay
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Sexual references
References to masturbation,
implied sexual acts, sexually
Reebok, United States, 2000
A guy sucks snake venom out of
CBS rejected the advertisement, which
“struck some adults as repulsive”
suggestive nudity or partial
his friend’s leg in a position that is
(Vranica, 2000).
nudity
mistaken for felatio by an onlooker.
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Profanity/obscenity
Swear words, obscene gestures,
racial epitaphs
Holsten Pils, United Kingdom, 1996
Print advertisement depicts smashed
Advertisement deemed part of
“yobbo advertising” trend—the
bottles of the product accompanied
by the word “shit.”
desire to shock an audience to
attention by whatever means possible
(Cooper, 1996).
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Vulgarity
References to crude or distasteful
Smartbeep, United States, 1999
Pushes the limits of bad taste
acts by humans or animals, such
Woman “lets rip a frat-house blast”
(Vagnoni, 1999).
as nose picking, farting, licking,
of gas while waiting for date to join
humping, or drinking from the toilet
her in car.
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Impropriety
Violations of social conventions
for dress, manners, etc.
Adidas, Canada, 1993
Magazine advertisement depicts
all-nude male soccer team.
Sports Illustrated rejected the advertisement because the male nudity was
considered offensive by the magazine
(Advertising Age International, 1993).
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Moral offensiveness
Harming innocent people/animals,
gratuitous violence or sex, alluding
to people or objects that provoke
Diesel Jeans, Italy, 1998
Television commercial features a
soldier who is shot in the back by
Written complaints to British
Advertising Standards Authority;
the press tags the campaign
violence (e.g., Hitler), violating
a German sniper while protecting
“controversial” (Financial Post, 1998).
standards for fair behavior (e.g.,
shooting a person in the back),
putting children in provocative
situations (e.g., sexual, violent),
a friend wearing Diesel jeans.
Acurist, United Kingdom, 1997
Depicts “skeletal” model wearing
Press calls campaign “startling” and
“controversial” (Hall, 1997).
victim exploitation
watch on upper arm with tagline
“Watch your weight”
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Religious taboos
Inappropriate use of spiritual or
religious symbols and/or rituals
Benetton, 1994
Depicts a priest and nun kissing
Campaign designed to shock and
provoke (Marketing Week, 1994)
British Safety Council, 1994
The British Advertising Standards
Authority received 1,192 complaints
Leaflet campaign for national condom
week depicts the Pope wearing a
safety helmet with the line, “The
(Marketing, 1996).
11 th commandment—thou shalt
wear a condom.”
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
270 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH September 2003
SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS
application. We chose to use student subjects in this context because they represent a realistic target market for HIV/
AIDS prevention initiatives. Indeed, among
the cases of positive HIV infection reported in North America through 2001
approximately one-third occurred among
people age 29 and younger (Centers for
Figure 1 A Preliminary Model of Consumer Reactions to
Shock Appeals
Disease Control [CDC], 2001; Health Canada, 2002). Risk factors are generally higher
among this group because of their increased incidence of sexual activity and
sonal norm) causes surprise (Stiensmeier-
as well documented (Vakratsas and Am-
drug-related behaviors (CDC, 2002), and
Pelster, Martini, and Reisenzein, 1995).
bler, 1999), but the presumption is that
both the CDC and Health Canada have
Surprise is a significant part of the pro-
shocking advertising content, because it
identified their nations’ youth as repre-
cess because it initializes the processing
attracts attention and elicits cognitive pro-
senting the key to preventing the spread
of advertising information; it attracts at-
cessing, stands a better chance of eliciting
of HIV/AIDS in their countries.
tention to the novel stimulus or event
appropriate behavior compared to ad-
One-hundred-and-five undergraduate
(Meyer, Niepel, Rudolph, and Schötz-
vertisements that have less success at
students participated in the study for
wohl, 1991). By focusing attention on the
moving people through the stages of in-
course credit. Subjects were randomly as-
stimulus, surprise encourages additional
formation processing.
signed to one of the three experimental
processing of advertising content, an idea
Our first study tests the process just
supported by research on expectancy-
described by comparing three print adver-
disconfirmation theory. Empirical find-
tisements, one of which is deliberately
ings in this area demonstrate that
designed to provoke offense—the shock
Stimuli. To prepare stimulus materials,
individuals engage in higher levels of
appeal.
we first examined a convenience sample
attributional thought for unexpected (surprising) compared to expected events
ranged in age from 18 to 27.
of HIV/AIDS prevention advertisements
STUDY 1
targeted toward our subject population
(Pyszczynski and Greenberg, 1981). Surprise, therefore, encourages further cog-
conditions and run individually. Subjects
that had appeared in print in the United
Method
States or Canada during the preceding
nitive activity as individuals seek to
three years. Three print advertisements,
understand the source of their surprise.
Subjects and setting. A between-subjects
one for each type of appeal (i.e., informa-
The additional processing of advertising
experimental design employing three dif-
tion, fear, and shock), were selected from
information takes the form of comprehen-
ferent advertising appeals (shock, fear, and
the sample to serve as frames for stimu-
sion, a literal understanding of the mes-
information) was used to test for effects
lus development. None of these advertise-
sage, and elaboration, the production of
on advertising attention, recall, and rec-
ments ran in the geographical region in
product/message-related thoughts (Green-
ognition in an HIV/AIDS prevention con-
which the study was conducted. Each ad-
wald and Leavitt, 1984). Indeed, empiri-
text. We chose a HIV/AIDS context, as
vertisement promoted condom usage as
cal research investigating unexpectedness,
prevention communications employed by
an aspect of a healthy sexual lifestyle.
incongruity, and other dimensions of stim-
public health organizations have a history
Borrowing headlines and graphical themes
ulus novelty indicates that these charac-
of using “shock value” messages to com-
from the selected advertisements, three
teristics encourage cognitive processes that
bat ambivalence toward this particular dis-
otherwise original print advertisements
produce robust effects on memory (Heck-
ease (Schlossberg, 1991).
were developed by an advertising agency.
ler and Childers, 1992; Lynch and Srull,
In defining our experimental sample, it
The shock advertisement’s headline read
1982; MacInnis, Moorman, and Jaworski,
was important to center the communica-
“Don’t be a F—ing Idiot” and featured a
1991). The effects of cognitive processing
tion in a population in which an AIDS-
hazy but recognizable visual of a nude
on behavior are generally weaker and not
prevention message had relevance and
couple in an intimate embrace (see Fig-
September 2003 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 271
SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS
ure 2). The fear advertisement showed a
vertisement was the tagline “Use a Con-
11 inch mockups of the test advertise-
driver’s license with the expiry date cir-
dom!” in large letters, with smaller text
ments (shock n 5 23, fear n 5 28, in-
cled in red and the headline “If you get
below that read “Latex condoms, when
formation n 5 26). Subjects rated the
the AIDS virus now, you and your license
used correctly and consistently, signifi-
advertisement on 7-point scales (Disagree/
could expire at the same time” (see Fig-
cantly reduce the chance of acquiring
Agree) indicating the extent to which ad-
ure 3). The information advertisement fea-
HIV/AIDS.”
vertisements were considered shocking,
scary/frightening (r 5 .815), educational/
tured a graphic of the AIDS acronym with
Pretesting was conducted to ensure that
the words “Acquired Immunodeficiency
the advertisements were perceived as con-
factual (r 5 .713), understandable, and
Syndrome” appearing in brackets imme-
veying shock, fear, or information, and
likable.
diately below. The subhead read “First
that they were equally understandable and
As expected, the shock advertisement
Identified May 11, 1982 in New York City”
likable. A sample of undergraduate stu-
(mean 5 4.41) was shown to be more
(see Figure 4). At the bottom of each ad-
dents (n 5 77) viewed one of three 9 _12 by
shocking than the fear advertisement
(mean 5 3.55) and the information advertisement (mean 5 2.98). Further, the fear
advertisement was deemed more frightening (mean 5 4.20) than the shock
advertisement (mean 5 3.20) or the informational advertisement (mean 5 3.17).
Finally, the information advertisement
(mean 5 4.63) was rated more educational/
factual than either the shock (mean 5
3.85) or fear advertisement (mean 5 3.77).
The three advertisements were rated to be
equally likable and understandable. Table 2
provides the relevant test statistics for these
comparisons.
Procedure. Upon arriving at the lab reception area, subjects were told they would
undertake the study in an alternate room,
as the experimental lab was being renovated. The alternate room was described
as a “student clubroom” that had been
temporarily vacated and loaned to the
experimenters for the week. The clubroom was in fact a controlled experimental environment consisting of a table, chair,
the stimulus poster, and four decoy posters (scenery poster, Safewalk poster, Pepsi
poster, and student crossing poster). The
table and chair were situated such that
subjects had an equal opportunity to view
each poster. Subjects were asked to sit at
the table and complete a pricing survey (a
decoy). At this point the experimenter
indicated that they had forgotten to bring
Figure 2 Shock Appeal
272 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH September 2003
the first part of the survey and asked the
SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS
dent variables detailed below. Subjects
who completed the instrument were then
fully debriefed and thanked for their
participation.
Measures. The survey instrument first
measured unaided recall of the posters by
asking the subjects to write down the
names or themes of the posters they remembered seeing in the student clubroom. Subjects were then asked to indicate
which of these posters attracted their attention the most. They were then asked to
explain why the posters attracted their
attention. Responses to this question were
coded by two independent research assistants, blind to the purpose of the experiment, who identified if subjects mentioned
a specific norm violation as a cause of
their attention toward the advertisement.
Initial agreement between the coders was
96.4 percent, and disputes were resolved
through discussion with one of the authors. Following the cognitive response
question, a list of the eight posters (the
five that were in the room and an additional three that were not) was provided
and subjects were asked to indicate which
posters they recognized. A second recognition measure provided five statements
from which subjects were to select the
statement they remembered seeing in the
Figure 3 Fear Appeal
copy of the target poster.
Only those subjects that remembered
the “Use a Condom” poster were in-
subject to wait while the missing section
istered to determine if subjects suspected
structed to complete the manipulation
was retrieved. This delay provided the
that the posters were the experimental
check measures. These consisted of a se-
subject an opportunity to be exposed to
stimuli. This probe involved asking the
ries of 7-point scales (Disagree/Agree) that
the posters in the room. The experimenter
subject what they thought the purpose of
asked subjects how they felt after viewing
returned after 1.5 minutes, provided the
the study was. Subjects were deemed sus-
the target advertisement (shocked, scared,
decoy survey, and instructed the subject
picious if they mentioned the posters or
educated). Additional measures asked sub-
to return to the reception area for debrief-
indicated that the experimenters had ul-
jects to indicate whether the advertise-
ing after completing the survey.
terior motives beyond the completion of
ment was obscene, startling, likable, and
After arriving at the reception area, the
the pricing survey. Subjects who were not
understandable. All subjects then com-
subject was debriefed about the purpose
identified to be suspicious (n 5 96; 32 per
pleted an open-ended question that asked
of the decoy study. As part of this debrief-
experimental cell) were asked to com-
them what they thought the study was
ing, a verbal suspicion probe was admin-
plete an instrument containing the depen-
about (a second suspicion probe). They
September 2003 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 273
SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS
likable and understandable manipulation
check measures. Table 2 provides the relevant test statistics for these comparisons.
To test our shock definition, we also compared ratings of the obscene and startling
nature of the three advertisements. As expected, the shock advertisement (mean 5
3.25) was perceived to be more obscene than
the fear advertisement (mean 5 1.73) and
the information advertisement (mean 5
2.23). The shock advertisement (mean 5
3.91) was also shown to be more startling
than the fear advertisement (mean 5 3.00)
and the information advertisement (mean 5
2.62). These results validate our conceptualization that shocking advertising both
startles audiences and violates societal
norms in its execution.
Responses to the question related to the
perceived purpose of the study indicated
that none of the subjects was aware of the
experimental hypotheses.
Main analyses. The primary dependent
measures in this study focused on the
attention, recall, recognition, and processing of the three experimental advertisements (see Table 2). When asked to indicate
which poster drew their attention the most,
a greater percentage of subjects in the
shock advertisement condition chose the
experimental advertisement (84.4 percent)
compared to the fear (40.6 percent) and
Figure 4 Information Appeal
information conditions (46.9 percent). Analysis using logistic regression, with attention as the criterion variable and the three
were then asked to indicate their age,
imental conditions. Paralleling the pre-
advertising appeals as dummy-predictor
gender, relationship status, and usage of
test, the shock advertisement was perceived
variables reinforces the previous results
condoms. Responses to these items had
to be more shocking (shock mean 5 4.00,
by indicating a higher probability for sub-
no effect on the results reported below
fear mean 5 2.77, inform mean 5 2.27),
jects in the shock condition to identify the
and therefore are not discussed further.
the fear advertisement more frightening
experimental advertisement as being able
(fear mean 5 3.81, shock mean 5 2.28,
to capture their attention most.
Findings
inform mean 5 2.92), and the information
The coded cognitive responses indi-
advertisement more educational (inform
cated that among subjects naming the
Preliminary analyses. Planned contrasts
mean 5 5.69, shock mean 5 4.72, fear
shock advertisement as that which at-
were used to test for the effectiveness of
mean 5 4.58). No differences were found
tracted their attention the most, 77.8 per-
our manipulations across the three exper-
across the three advertisements for the
cent mentioned a specific norm violation
274 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH September 2003
SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS
TABLE 2
Stimulus Means, Sample Sizes, and Test Statistics
Advertising Type
Statistical Comparisons
.................................................................................
........................................................
Shock
Fear
Information
Test Statistic
p<
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Pretest
means
n = 23
n = 28
n = 26
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Shocking
4.41
3.55
2.98
a. t(75) = 2.02
.05
c. t(75) = 3.31
.01
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Frightening
3.20
4.20
3.17
a. t(75) = 2.25
.05
b. t(75) = 2.38
.05
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Educational/factual
3.85
3.77
4.63
b. t(75) = 2.29
.05
c. t(75) = 1.98
.05
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Study
1—Preliminary Analysis Means
n = 32
n = 32
n = 32
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Shocking
4.00
2.77
2.27
a. t(94) = 2.37
.05
c. t(94) = 3.78
.001
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Frightening
2.28
3.81
2.92
a. t(94) = 3.08
.01
b. t(94) = 1.70
.05
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Educational/factual
4.72
4.58
5.69
b. t(94) = 2.20
.05
c. t(94) = 2.02
.05
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Obscene
3.25
1.73
2.23
a. t(94) = 3.82
.001
c. t(94) = 2.56
.05
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Startling
3.91
3.00
2.62
a. t(94) = 1.78
.05
c. t(94) = 2.54
.05
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Study 1—Main Analysis Percentages
Percent who claim test advertisement drew most attention
84.4
40.6
x 2 (2) = 14.65
46.9
.01
Wald t (1) = 9.05
.01
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.001
Percent who mention norm violation as attention draw
77.8
7.7
6.7
x 2 (2) = 28.14
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Percent who recalled test advertisement
96.9
78.1
78.1
x 2 (2) = 5.69
.10
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Percent who recognized test advertisement
100.0
81.3
81.3
x 2 (2) = 6.86
.05
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Percent who correctly recognized test advertising copy
90.6
59.4
x 2 (2) = 14.41
46.9
.01
Wald t (1) = 7.18
.01
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Note: a 5 Shock versus Fear, b 5 Fear versus Information, c 5 Shock versus Information
as a factor in drawing their attention. The
. . . norm violation is the key to heightened awareness of
percentages of people identifying norm
violations in the other conditions were
shocking advertising content.
much lower (information, 6.7 percent; fear,
7.7 percent). This result validates our conceptualization that norm violation is the
On recall, individuals in the shock con-
percent) than those in either the informa-
key to heightened awareness of shocking
dition recalled the experimental advertise-
tion or fear conditions (78.1 percent each).
advertising content.
ment at a significantly higher level (96.9
Analysis on the recognition measure indi-
September 2003 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 275
SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS
cated that all subjects in the shock condi-
intended behavior. In contrast, it is also
Measures. On the table were eight items
tion were able to identify the advertisement
possible that due to the norm violation
in sets of five each: (1) pamphlets by a
when cued, whereas those in the fear and
inherent in shock appeals, the resulting
public mental health organization on sui-
information conditions realized only an
outcome effect of shocking advertising con-
cide prevention; (2) pamphlets on alcohol
81.3 percent recognition rate. Further, a
tent may be unintended negative behav-
and drug consumption; (3) information
greater proportion of subjects in the shock
ior. To investigate these differing positions,
on United Way charities; (4) personal bor-
condition were able to identify the correct
a second study was conducted in which
rowing information from a local bank;
advertising copy (90.6 percent) compared
the subsequent behavior of subjects ex-
(5) sunscreen advice from the Cancer
to the fear (59.4 percent) and information
posed to shocking advertising content was
Society; (6) Condom Knowledge from
conditions (46.9 percent). Logistic regres-
measured.
Durex; (7) AIDS ribbons; and (8) a busi-
sion, with recognition of the advertising
Study 2 employed the same stimuli and
ness card with the HIV/AIDS hotline from
copy serving as the criterion variable
between-subjects experimental design that
a local medical clinic. Of the eight items,
and the advertising appeals acting as
was used in study 1 but added a control
the last three were used to measure the
dummy-variable predictors, indicates a
condition in which the “Use a Condom”
dependent variable.
higher probability for subjects in the shock
poster was absent. One-hundred-and-
condition to identify the correct advertis-
forty undergraduate students partici-
ing copy.
pated in the study for course credit.
Subjects were randomly assigned to one
Summary
of the four experimental conditions and
As expected, the shock appeal outper-
run individually.
formed the fear and information appeals
on measures of attention, recall, and rec-
Procedure. The same cover story and pro-
ognition. Importantly, our results showed
cedure that were used in study 1 were
that subjects felt the shock advertisement
followed with the exception that quali-
violated social norms, and this finding is
fied (i.e., nonsuspicious) subjects (n 5
interpreted as the cause of heightened
136; 34 per cell) did not respond to a
awareness for the shock appeal. The evi-
paper and pencil measure. Instead, sub-
dence from this initial study supports our
jects were directed to a table in the re-
contention that shocking advertising con-
ception area. Subjects were told that on
tent is superior to nonshocking content in
this table were some items left over from
its ability to attract attention and facilitate
cleaning out the clubroom and that the
memory for the advertisement.
club no longer wanted to keep these items.
Subjects were informed they could look
STUDY 2
at the items and keep any that they
wanted. The experimenter left the recep-
Method
tion area at this point on the pretext of
getting the extra credit roster from an-
Findings
The dependent variable was measured by
observing which of the HIV/AIDS-related
materials the subject picked up when the
experimenter was absent from the room.
Table 3 gives the percentages of item
pickup for each experimental condition.
Differences across conditions were shown
to be statistically significant, with subjects
in the shock (47.1 percent) and fear (52.9
percent) conditions more likely to pick up
materials than in the information (23.5
percent) and control (20.6 percent) conditions. Analysis using logistic regression,
with the observation variable serving as
the criterion and the three advertising and
control conditions acting as dummyvariable predictors, indicates a higher probability for subjects in both the shock
condition and the fear condition to pickup
HIV/AIDS-related materials.
Subjects and setting. The first study
other room so that the subject could sign
showed positive outcomes for shocking
it. This allowed subjects to be alone to
Summary
advertising content with respect to mea-
select and take any of the items. The
Approximately one-half of the subjects in
sures of attention and memory. However,
experimenter returned to the reception
the shock and fear conditions picked up
it remains unclear about how shocking
area after two minutes, obtained the sub-
an AIDS-related item, compared to ap-
advertising content will impact subsequent
ject’s signature, and thanked the subject
proximately 20 percent in the information
behavior. On one hand, given the strong
for participating. Once the subject left
and control conditions. Beyond benefits
positive effects of shock advertising on
the reception area, the experimenter
for attention and memory, shocking ad-
memory, it is likely that these positive
counted the items and made a note of
vertising content was able to motivate
effects will in turn translate into actual
which items had been picked up.
subjects to acknowledge the risk of AIDS
276 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH September 2003
SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS
TABLE 3
Percentages of People Who Picked up HIV/AIDS Items
tisements, need not be considered to be
Experimental Condition
% Who Select an Item
.............................................................................................................................................................
although a shock advertisement generates
necessarily negative and ineffective. In a
public-policy context we have shown that,
Control
20.6
.............................................................................................................................................................
an acknowledgement of norm violation
among viewers, it also ensures that sub-
Fear
52.9
.............................................................................................................................................................
jects remember the message and engage
Information
23.5
.............................................................................................................................................................
in message-relevant behavior. In a clut-
Shock
47.1
.............................................................................................................................................................
tered advertising environment, shocking
n = 34 subjects per cell
x 2 (3) = 11.836, p < .01
sage will be heard.
Shock—Wald t (1) = 5.10, p < .05
Fear—Wald t (1) = 7.23, p < .01
.............................................................................................................................................................
acquisition and obtain information regard-
advertising content ensures that the mesWe temper our endorsement for shock
tactics by noting critical characteristics of
The shock appeal . . . was effective at encouraging sub-
ing safe sex behavior.
Interestingly, we noted similar positive
jects to remember advertising information and to engage
effects for the fear advertisement appeal.
Given the findings from our two studies,
in message-relevant behaviors.
it seems that although shock and fear are
equally effective in producing message
consistent behaviors, these appeals may
this than other types of appeals (e.g., fear
the research context we employed. First,
be operating in different ways. Shock seems
and information). Furthermore, the two
the subject population (university stu-
to be effective because its norm violation
studies demonstrate that it is possible for
dents) we chose to expose to the shock
surprises the subject and produces addi-
a shock appeal to have positive effects
appeal is a specific at-risk population for
tional cognitive processing. The effective-
beyond initial attention. The shock appeal
AIDS transmission. It has been recom-
ness of the fear appeal may be due to the
investigated in this study was effective
mended that shock appeals should be tar-
fact that it solicits and taps into a more
at encouraging subjects to remember ad-
geted to specific populations that will be
affective response from the subject. Fu-
vertising information and to engage in
open to the message conveyed (Schloss-
ture research that explores the potential
message-relevant behaviors. This article
berg, 1991; Tylee, 1998), and this seems
differences in the processes resulting from
also makes an important contribution by
probable for the audience we selected.
these two forms of appeal would be help-
conceptualizing shock as a combination
Subject populations drawn from different
ful in further understanding their similar-
of norm violation and surprise. This as-
age cohorts, who are less educated or
ities and differences.
sists in the development of future re-
who reside in different countries, may
search on shocking communications by
have responded differently to our shock
CONCLUSIONS
providing a meaningful conceptual defi-
message. Second, our research was con-
This research tested the effectiveness of a
nition from which to work.
ducted in a public health context through
shock appeal against two other com-
Our research would suggest that con-
a specific public service message. It re-
monly used appeals in the context of HIV/
trary to recent skepticism and concern
mains to be seen whether the shock ap-
AIDS prevention and, in doing so, makes
regarding the negative effects of using
peal effects shown in this research translate
the following contributions. First, study 1
shocking advertising content (e.g., Eads,
into success in other types of advertising
confirmed what has until now been only
1999), this type of communications strat-
situations. It is possible that there is a
an intuition that shock is very good at
egy can be effective. The publicity that is
greater toleration for norm violation in a
attracting attention. Second, it was dem-
often generated, as a consequence of the
public-policy context because viewers may
onstrated that a shock appeal is better at
norm-violating nature of shocking adver-
agree that “the ends justify the means”
September 2003 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 277
SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS
(Thacker, 1993). Finally, the shock tactic
ate advertising situations, brand and
possible, however, for a shocking adver-
we employed is relevant to the subject
products offerings, and advertising medi-
tisement that is potentially disliked to be
matter of the communicated message. In
ums suited for shock tactics. As noted
effective? The negative repercussions re-
the shock appeal tested, we matched the
previously, in our research we chose a
alized by Benetton for using death row
subject matter of the communication (i.e.,
public policy context as it seemed that
inmates in a recent advertising campaign
safe sex) to relevant shock graphics (i.e.,
shock tactics can be judged to be appro-
provide some anecdotal evidence that a
naked couple embracing) and language
priate in these types of advertising situ-
strongly disliked shock appeal may not
(i.e., f--k) execution. The importance of
ations (Schlossberg, 1991; Thacker, 1993).
provide tangible benefits (de Chenecey,
the fit between the message topic and
Shock tactics also seem commonplace in
2000; Lippert, 2000). However, other dis-
shock tactic employed has been previ-
advertising situations that involve a new-
liked shock advertisements (e.g., Calvin
ously recognized (Gustafson and Yssel,
product or brand introduction (Lauro,
Klein’s 1995 child exploitive advertise-
1994), and studies show that communica-
1999; Sellar, 1999). For example, internet
ments) have been cited as casual factors
tions can be rendered less effective when
companies like Outpost.com, Ecampus.
in an organization’s subsequent profitabil-
their executions involve a mismatch be-
com, and Beyond.com utilized shock tac-
ity (Rees, 1995). Future research should
tween either the product message (Court-
tics when first entering the ecommerce
investigate the boundaries and strength
ney and Whipple, 1983) or execution
marketplace. In these instances, the
of the shocking aspect of an appeal to
message (Venkat and Abi-Hanna, 1995).
attention-grabbing ability of a shock ap-
better define what leads to shock adver-
peal was used to gain top-of-mind aware-
tising effectiveness.
Limitations and future research
ness (Lauro, 1999). We also note that a
Our findings suggest that advertising
There are a number of limitations of this
large number of the shock advertise-
practitioners as well as public policy mak-
research that provide direction for future
ments we encountered advertised prod-
ers should consider the use of shocking
investigation. While this study makes a
ucts and brands targeted to younger age
content in their advertising campaigns.
significant contribution in reporting ac-
cohorts. Shock tactics map well onto the
Skeptics have criticized the effectiveness
tual rather than intended behaviors, the
stereotypical youth need for rebellion and
of shocking advertising, but our research
behaviors we tested are product-use re-
societal norm challenging behavior. A
indicates that shocking communications
lated (e.g., awareness/concern through
shock appeal targeted to a youth audi-
can have positive effects on attention,
picking up an HIV/AIDS ribbon or bro-
ence has the potential to be deemed “cool”
memory, and behavior. Still, we believe
chure) rather than actual product (e.g.,
and relevant to this audience’s specific
that direct norm violation in advertising
condom) use. The current study also mea-
needs. Indeed, some research suggests
should be used responsibly. This would
sured memory after only a short delay,
that this particular audience is prone to
entail careful target audience selection and
leaving future research to discover any
like and accept potentially offensive ma-
savvy creative execution. Just as some
long-term effects on memory and behav-
terial (Oppliger and Zillman, 1997). While
people can enjoy a vulgar or tasteless
ior for shocking stimuli. Further, it re-
somewhat intuitive, these ideas regard-
joke, certain advertising audiences can like
mains to be seen whether the positive
ing the application of shock are derived
and respond to a shocking advertisement
benefits in attention we attribute to shock
from anecdotal and cursory evidence. Fu-
even while judging it obscene or vulgar.
appeals are mitigated by a faster rate of
ture research is needed to better define
Furthermore, shocking advertisements
advertising wearout for shock appeals.
the specific advertising characteristics
should reveal some benefit to using the
The blunt execution of norm violation
that are appropriate for an effective shock
product, rather than using shocking con-
and surprise inherent in shock advertise-
appeal.
tent as an unrelated attention-getting
ments may quickly lose its “edginess” as
Our research used a shock advertise-
gimmick. Despite these caveats and the
the audience becomes familiarized with
ment that was rated as likable by the
limitations described above, our research
the appeal. Future research should probe
subject population participating in our
suggests that skepticism regarding the ef-
for discrepancies in wearout rates for shock
study. Our findings that showed the ef-
fectiveness of shocking advertising might
advertisements vis-à-vis other advertising
fectiveness of the tested shock appeal thus
be put aside until additional investiga-
appeals and test for relevant implications.
fit well with previous research linking
tions are made into the appropriate use of
Future research should also be di-
advertising effectiveness with advertising
norm violations in different advertising
rected toward identifying the appropri-
liking (Haley and Baldinger, 1991). Is it
contexts.
278 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH September 2003
SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS
................................................................................................
Centers for Disease Control and Preven-
Greenwald, Anthony G., and Clark Lea-
DARREN W. DAHL is associate professor of marketing
tion (CDC). HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 13, 1
vitt. “Audience Involvement in Advertising:
at the Sauder School of Business at the University of
(2001).
Four Levels.” Journal of Consumer Research 11, 1
(1984): 581–92.
British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia.
................................................................................................
–——. Fact Sheet —Young People at Risk: HIV/
KRISTINA D. FRANKENBERGER is associate professor of
AIDS Among America’s Youth. [URL: http://
marketing in the Division of Business and Economics
www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/youth.htm] ,
vertisers Practicing Safe Sex?” Marketing News,
at Western Oregon University in Monmouth, Oregon.
2002.
March 14, 1994.
RAJESH V. MANCHANDA is associate professor of mar-
Cooper, Ann. “The Shock of the Crude.” Ad-
Haley, Russell I., and Allan L. Baldinger.
keting at the I.H. Asper School of Business at the
week, February 5, 1996.
“The ARF Copy Research Validity Project.” Jour-
Gustafson, Bob, and Johan Yssel. “Are Ad-
................................................................................................
nal of Advertising Research 31, 2 (1991): 11–32.
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Cosper, Darcy. “Shock Value.” Print 51, 6 (1997):
Hall, Emma. “TBWA Simons Uses a Skeletal
38–40.
Model in Shock Accurist Ads.” Campaign-
REFERENCES
Courtney, Alice E., and Thomas W. Whipple.
Aaker, David A. “Causes of Irritation in Ad-
Sex Stereotyping in Advertising. Lexington, MA:
vertising.” Journal of Marketing 49, 2 (1985):
D.C. Health and Company, 1983.
Health Canada. HIV and AIDS in Canada.
Surveillance Report to December 31, 2001. Divi-
47–57.
Day, Louis A. Ethics in Media Communications.
Advertising Age. “Bad Frog Beer Triggers an
London, November 7, 1997.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1991.
sion of HIV/AIDS Epidemiology and Surveillance, Centre for Infectious Disease Prevention
and Control, Health Canada, 2002.
Amphibious Assault.” April 1, 1996.
de Chenecey, Sean Pillot. “When is it Right
Advertising Age International. “Adidas
to Use Shock Ad Strategies?” Marketing, March
Finds ‘SI’ Ad Cancellation Difficult to Bare.”
30, 2000.
Heckler, Susan E., and Terry L. Childers.
“The Role of Expectancy and Relevancy in
Memory for Verbal and Visual Information:
July 5, 1993.
What is Incongruity?” Journal of Consumer ReEads, Stefani. “Eighty-Six the Flying Gerbils.”
Associated Press. “Breast Cancer Ads Cause
search 18, 4 (1992): 475–92.
Business Week, December 6, 1999.
Stir.” The New York Times on the Web, January
27, 2000.
Bainbridge A. “’Offensive Ads at All-Time High
Horovitz, Bruce. “Shock Ads: New Rage that
Eisner, Jane. “Nonprofit ‘Shock’ Ads Overdo
Spawns Rage.” Los Angeles Times, March 22,
It.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, February 12, 2001.
1992.
Financial Post. “Diesel Defends War Ads.”
Kalish, David. “Doing Well by Doing Good.”
November 9, 1998.
Marketing and Media Decisions 25, 1 (1990): 22–23.
Garfield, Bob. Advertrocities. [video]. New York:
Lasn, Kalle. Culture Jam: The Uncooling of Amer-
London International Advertising Awards,
ica. New York: Eagle Brook, 1999.
Warns the ASA.” Marketing, April 4, 1996.
Baron, Robert A., and Donn Byrne. Social
Psychology: Understanding Human Interaction. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1977.
Belch, George E., Michael A. Belch, and
2000.
Lauro, Patricia Winters. “Dot-com Compa-
Angelina Villarreal. “Effects of Advertising
Communications: Review of Research.” In Re-
Goodrum, Charles, and Helen Dalrymple.
nies Have Built Their Brands by Using More
search in Marketing, Jagdish Sheth, ed. New
Advertising in America: The First 200 Years. New
Ads, in Good Taste or Not. Often Not.” The
York: JAI Press, 1987.
York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1990.
New York Times, September 30, 1999.
Campaign. “LTA Bans Anti-Drink Poster.” Feb-
Graham, Judith. “Benetton ‘Colors’ the Race
Lippert, Barbara. “All FCUKed Up.” Adweek,
ruary 10, 1995.
Issue.” Advertising Age, September 11, 1989.
October 11, 1999.
September 2003 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 279
SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS
–——. “Capital Offense.” Adweek, February 28,
Pyszczynski, Thomas A., and Jeff Greenberg.
Tinic, Serra A. “United Colors and Untied
2000.
“Role of Disconfirmed Expectancies in the In-
Meanings: Benetton and the Commodification
stigation of Attributional Processing.” Journal
of Social Issues.” Journal of Communication 47, 3
Lynch, John G., Jr., and Thomas K. Srull.
of Personality and Social Psychology 40, 1 (1981):
(1997): 3–25.
“Memory and Attentional Factors in Consumer
31–38.
Choice: Concepts and Research Methods.” Journal of Consumer Research 9, 1 (1982): 18–37.
MacInnis, Deborah J., Christine Moorman,
Tylee, John. “AMV Ad Aims to Shock Viewers
Rees, Jon. “Calvin Klein Makes ‘Offensive’ Ads
into Belting Up.” Campaign, July 10, 1998.
Pay.” Marketing Week, September 8, 1995.
Vagnoni, Anthony. “’Something About’ This
and Bernard J. Jaworski. “Enhancing and Measuring Consumers’ Motivation, Opportunity, and
Schlossberg, Howard. “AIDS-Prevention Ads
Advertising.” Advertising Age, February 8,
Ability to Process Brand Information from Ads.”
Spark Battle Over What’s Proper.” Marketing
1999.
Journal of Marketing 55, 4 (1991): 32–53.
News, April 29, 1991.
Vakratsas, Demetrios, and Tim Ambler. “How
Marketing. “‘Offensive’ Ads at All-Time High
Warns the ASA.” April 4, 1996.
Sellar, Sara. “Pop Goes the Gerbil.” Sales and
Marketing Management 151, 5 (1999): 15.
Advertising Really Works: What Do We
Really Know?” Journal of Marketing 63, 1 (1999):
26–43.
Marketing Week. “Blood Sweaters and Tears.”
June 3, 1994.
Shannon, John. “Why Shock Ads Have Their
Place.” Marketing Week, November 10, 1995.
–——. “NSPCC to Hit Cinemas with ‘Shock’
Ad.” 1995.
–——. “ASA Blasts Sony for ‘Offensive’ Mortuary Ad.” February 11, 1999.
Sherif, Muzafer, and Carolyn W. Sherif.
Social Psychology. New York: Harper & Row,
1969.
Van Munching, Philip. “The Devil’s Adman.” Brandweek, August 24, 1998.
Venkat, Ramesh, and Noba Abi-Hanna. “Effectiveness of Visually Shocking Advertisements:
Is
It
Context
Dependent?”
In
Administrative Science Association of Canada ProMcGuire, William J. “An Information Process-
Sloan, Pat, and DeCoursey, Jennifer. “Klein’s
ing Model of Advertising Effectiveness.” In
Risque Jeans Ads Dodge Kiddie Porn Rap
Behavioral and Management Science in Marketing,
from the Feds.” Advertising Age, November 20,
Vranica, Suzanne. “Hard Sell: In 2000, Taste
Harry J. Davis and Alvin J. Silk, eds. New
1995.
was Optional.” Wall Street Journal, December 5,
York: Ronald Press, 1978.
Meyer, Wulf-Uwe, Michael Niepel, Udo Ru-
ceedings, 1995.
2000.
Stiensmeier-Pelster, Joachim, Alice Martini, and Rainer Reisenzein. “The Role of
Wald, Matthew L. “Shock to Replace Dum-
Surprise in the Attribution Process.” Cognition
mies in TV Ads on Seat Belt Use.” The New
and Emotion 9, 1 (1995): 5–31.
York Times, January 27, 1999.
Oppliger, Patrice A., and Dolf Zillman. “Dis-
Thacker, Kathy. “Brassy vs. Classy Creative:
Waller, David S. “Attitudes Towards Offen-
gust in Humor: Its Appeal to Adolescents.”
Defining Taste in Advertising.” Adweek, March
sive Advertising: An Australian Study.” Journal
Humor 10, 4 (1997): 421–37.
22, 1993.
of Consumer Marketing 16, 3 (1999): 288–94.
dolph, and Achim Schötzwohl. “An Experimental Analysis of Surprise.” Cognition and
Emotion 5, 4 (1991): 295–311.
280 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH September 2003
View publication stats